Birmingham City Council (202210292)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210292

Birmingham City Council

30 March 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to internal walls. 

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of a two-bedroom terraced house owned by the landlord, a local authority.
3. The resident has lived at the property since 2017 and in June 2022, raised a repair regarding the surface of the walls in her living room. The landlord’s repair log stated that  the walls were ‘boarded only, no setting coat, therefore no plastering repair needed’.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 7 July 2022 that she wished to redecorate her living room and once she had removed the wallpaper hung by the previous tenant, she saw that the walls were just plaster board and not skimmed over with plaster. She stated that the walls looked like shredded cardboard but when the contractor came he said that the landlord ‘would not touch it’, and she would have to get her own plasterer to do any skimming required. 
5. The complaint response on 12 July 2022 said that the contractor had assessed the walls and considered the plaster board was fit for purpose and that no repair was necessary. The landlord said that a reinspection was not required. The resident escalated the complaint and asked why she should pay when the walls should have been skimmed when the plaster board was installed. She wanted the housing officer and buildings inspector to inspect as the walls needed plastering and painting over them would look ‘disgusting’. 
6. The landlord’s final response on 15 August 2022 reiterated that there was no skim on these boards, which were the original ‘dry lining’ boards, so skimming would be classed as an improvement not a repair. It said that the plasterer who attended had over 30 years’ experience, was trusted by the contractor, and the landlord did not feel a further visit was necessary.
7. The resident remains dissatisfied as the landlord’s contractor did not properly consider the condition of the walls, and that the problem existed prior to her tenancy but was hidden behind wallpaper.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. There is a first stage complaint response dated 27 July 2022 regarding the issue of bin collections which the resident has copied to this Service, perhaps in error. It is not clear if the resident has a final response from the landlord on this matter.  This was not the complaint the resident brought to this Service but if it has not been resolved the resident should raise the matter with the landlord  and if appropriate, return to this Service as a new complaint. 
9. The resident has raised the question of how the walls could have been signed off as acceptable before she moved into the property, when they were covered in wallpaper.  Any concern about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy would need to have been raised within a reasonable period, usually six months, of the issue arising, which in this case was over five years ago. This is in accordance with paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. This investigation concerns how the landlord responded to the resident’s request for repairs when she reported the condition of her walls in June 2022.

Assessment

10. The tenant’s handbook and repairs guide says at page 13 that the tenant is responsible for keeping the inside of their home clean and well decorated.  Page 16 says the tenant is responsible for repairing minor damage to plaster surfaces.
11. Page 66 of the guide says that the tenant is responsible for decorating walls and ceilings in their home, repairing minor cracks and holes in walls and ceilings, and damage to plaster.  Page 77 headed ‘our repairs responsibilities’ says the landlord will repair and maintain the structure of the building and the outside of the building.
12. The conditions of tenancy booklet, at page four, defines improvement as ‘any alterations or addition to the property.’ Section 3.2 says that the landlord ‘will keep in repair the structure and exterior of your home (including drains, gutters and external pipes)’. Section 3.11 says the landlord had ‘no responsibility to install, extend or improve existing…internal plasterwork.’ Section 7.2 says that the tenant is ‘also responsible for repairing, renewing or replacing the following items… surface damage to internal plasterwork.’
13. In this instance, the landlord took appropriate steps to establish the condition of the residents walls and to determine what, if any, works it should carry out by arranging for a contractor to visit. It maintains that the contractor explained to the tenant that as the walls of the room was dry lined, it was not required to completed plastering works to the walls, and as this was requested for decorative purposes, the repair was cancelled. The landlord felt that the damage to the walls was a result of using a steam stripper which could make the walls seem unsightly when used on dry lining. It said that the work would be considered decoration, and therefore under the conditions of tenancy, the tenant’s responsibility.
14. The landlord’s response was in line with its responsibilities of both parties as set out in the condition of tenancy booklets, repairs policy and tenancy handbook.  This confirms that the resident is responsible for making good surface damage to internal plasterwork including making good minor cracks and holes in walls, and for completive decorative works, therefore that it was not obliged to make good the uneven surface left behind from the removal of the old wallpaper.  
15. The policies refer to the landlord’s legal responsibility for the structure of the property. The resident has quoted the ‘gov.uk’ website which also supports that the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property, to include the walls. The landlord is responsible for the exterior of the property and any structural repairs that may be needed.  However, it is not required to repair any interior problems such as uneven walls, unless these are affected as a result of the structure of the property not being in a good repair. In this case there is no evidence, nor was it claimed, that the issue with the resident’s walls arose from a structural issue, or that there were safety concerns. 
16. Whilst the resident’s frustration that the contractor immediately said that this was not a repair is noted, the Ombudsman must consider that the landlord has expert personnel who have made the finding and on whom it is entitled to rely on. The landlord has explained why this type of board is not skimmed, and accordingly, the resident has not stated that the walls were not sound prior to the wallpaper being removed. The landlord responded to the repair request in a reasonable time, and a suitably qualified contractor attended to inspect the property. No independent evidence to suggest that this is not the correct advice has been supplied to this Service.
17. The resident’s feelings on this issue are appreciated, as she is faced with the expense of paying a plasterer to skim at least part of the walls if she wishes to get the finish she desires and did not expect to find the unskimmed surface beneath the wallpaper. However, the landlord has explained that with this type of ‘dry lined wall’ it would not skim the boards with plaster. It also took the view that the damage to the surface was caused by a steamer during the removal of the wallpaper as opposed to the wall itself being defective. Whether this is the case or not, there is nothing in the tenant’s handbook and repair guide, or the conditions of tenancy booklet to suggest that the landlord now had a responsibility for skimming the (dry lined) wall.
18. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether a landlord has met its obligations to the resident, in line with any relevant policies and procedures, and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. It is not the role of this Service to make technical repair assessments on disputed issues but rather to determine whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a repair in a reasonable and competent manner. In this instance, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took proportionate and appropriate action in relation to investigating the concerns raised by the resident.  The decision it reached was in accordance with its policies, and duties and obligations as a landlord.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for repairs to internal walls.